(08-14-2020, 08:46 PM)Jason Wrote: ... You cannot know if Jesus existed without the New Testament. You cannot know what Jesus said without the New Testament. You cannot know where Jesus went or who he went there with without the New Testament.

If you reject the New Testament, you are logically obligated to reject everything you know about Jesus and throw that garbage teaching into the bin. You're so close to the truth, yet so far away by holding on to an entire mythology developed around a teacher who most likely never even existed. ...
He wasn't a great teacher. He was nothing. ...

(08-21-2020, 05:02 AM)robrecht Wrote:

(08-14-2020, 08:46 PM)Jason Wrote: ... You cannot know if Jesus existed without the New Testament. You cannot know what Jesus said without the New Testament. You cannot know where Jesus went or who he went there with without the New Testament.

If you reject the New Testament, you are logically obligated to reject everything you know about Jesus and throw that garbage teaching into the bin. You're so close to the truth, yet so far away by holding on to an entire mythology developed around a teacher who most likely never even existed. ...
He wasn't a great teacher. He was nothing. ...

Critical scholars have struggled to discern and dissect the combination of myth and history in the New Testament for a couple of centuries. Jewish scholars have helped some Christians better understand plausible reconstructions of an historical Jesus in his 2nd Temple Jewish context. One need not approach the New Testament with an all-or-nothing, black-and-white attitude.

(08-21-2020, 05:48 PM)Jason Wrote: But if you throw out blood atonement, you have nothing left in the New Testament. Every single author wrote about blood atonement and that Jesus died for people's sins. If you don't believe that, why believe in Jesus at all? There is nothing else about Jesus to believe in.

(08-20-2020, 03:31 PM)Jason Wrote:

(08-20-2020, 11:32 AM)ImAHebrew Wrote: Shalom Jason, it appears that you must agree in how the missionaires view their interpretation of the NT with their "Jesus" dying as their substitute FOR them?  Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

I know that the New Testament teaches that Jesus provided remission of sins through his blood. Yes, that is a cornerstone teaching of the New Testament. If you don't believe in that teaching, then you don't believe in the New Testament.

Romans 3:25 (NIV)
"God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith."

Romans 5:9 (NIV)
"Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!"

Ephesians 1:7 (NIV)
"In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace..."

Hebrews 13:12 (NIV)
"And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood."

Revelation 1:5 (NIV)
"and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood..."

I'm sorry, but if you don't believe this, then you don't believe in the New Testament. You cannot believe in Jesus as anything if you don't believe in blood atonement.

My advice? Just get rid of faith in Jesus already. Jesus was not the Messiah. He wasn't God incarnate. He wasn't a blood sacrifice. He wasn't the king of the Jews. He wasn't a great teacher. He was nothing. Just stop believing in him already. You've already undermined any reason that you might ever have had for believing in that stuff. Just take the next logical step and let it go.

(08-21-2020, 08:52 PM)robrecht Wrote:

(08-21-2020, 05:48 PM)Jason Wrote: But if you throw out blood atonement, you have nothing left in the New Testament. Every single author wrote about blood atonement and that Jesus died for people's sins. If you don't believe that, why believe in Jesus at all? There is nothing else about Jesus to believe in.

I'm not sure every author endorsed 'blood atonement', eg, some say the original text of the gospel of Luke did not contain this interpretation of Jesus' death. If I recall correctly (and maybe I don't), I don't think it is in the letter of James. It's been a while since I've read much of the New Testament so those are just a couple of thoughts off the top of my head.

But regardless, even if most or all NT authors interpreted Jesus' death as in some way bringing about atonement or repentance, so what? One can still investigate the teachings of Jesus for whatever value they may hold, apart from those who subsequently interpreted his death as having some atoning value. Some Jews around the same time also interpreted the death of the Maccabean martyrs as also offering atonement. Does that mean that their witness to their Jewish faith was meaningless? I certainly hope not.

(08-22-2020, 01:28 PM)ImAHebrew Wrote: Shabbat Shalom Jason, is there something wrong with me undermining what the missionaries profess concerning their interpretation of the NT?  Is not this the Counter Missionary Forum, and is this not the Problems with missionaries thread?  I am just countering and exposing their problems in trying to interpret THEIR "Jesus" as a substitute that they think died in their place to PAY the penalty of THEIR sin.  The texts of the NT that you quoted does not say that, BUT, it can be interpreted wrongly in appearing to say that.

We are also told in the texts of the NT that there was ANOTHER "Jesus" being accepted/preached, and even a DIFFERENT gospel, along with the fact that Paul's writings were being distorted and twisted by "lawless" men who were perverting and slandering what he taught/wrote.  My point is that most valid thinkers within Judaism would not consider that the Red Heifer was being slaughtered "in the place" of sinners, to satisfy the penalty or guilt of THEIR sin...would they?  Was not the purpose of the Red Heifer's slaughter a means to bring about the "REMISSION" of sin FROM a sinner (to separate their sin FROM their lives)?  Consider what happens when cancer goes into remission...the cancer is no longer active, it has been effectively SEPARATED from them, and this was the purpose of slaughtering the Red Heifer...to TURN sinners AWAY FROM their sin to where their sin is no longer active.

It's like I wrote in my last post.  The sinner is to IDENTIFY with the slaughtered sacrifice, and then put to death whatever caused them to kill or shed the blood of the offering.  The shedding of the blood IS the killing of the sacrifice, and that shed blood should cause the remission of sin in a sinner's life.  Just as a point of reference, consider how Peter accused those who were directly responsible for shedding innocent blood when he told them that they, with the help of wicked hands, did murder an innocent man, but then let a murderer go free.  Peter did not tell them a substitute died in their place to pay the penalty of their sin, he pointed out to them that they murdered/shed the blood of someone who did not deserve to die...and what was their response...they were CUT TO THE HEART, and ASKED what they must do.

These are the things that the missionaries have totally misunderstood and distorted, and that is a big problem for them, especially WHEN Judaism can faithfully explain and point out to them how the Ashes of the Red Heifer can BOTH defile the clean AND cleanse the defiled.  Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

(08-24-2020, 10:08 PM)Jason Wrote: What teachings of Jesus? If you eliminate the New Testament documents, there are no teachings of Jesus. Nothing. What are you talking about?

(08-24-2020, 10:10 PM)Jason Wrote:

(08-22-2020, 01:28 PM)ImAHebrew Wrote: Shabbat Shalom Jason, is there something wrong with me undermining what the missionaries profess concerning their interpretation of the NT?  Is not this the Counter Missionary Forum, and is this not the Problems with missionaries thread?  I am just countering and exposing their problems in trying to interpret THEIR "Jesus" as a substitute that they think died in their place to PAY the penalty of THEIR sin.  The texts of the NT that you quoted does not say that, BUT, it can be interpreted wrongly in appearing to say that.

We are also told in the texts of the NT that there was ANOTHER "Jesus" being accepted/preached, and even a DIFFERENT gospel, along with the fact that Paul's writings were being distorted and twisted by "lawless" men who were perverting and slandering what he taught/wrote.  My point is that most valid thinkers within Judaism would not consider that the Red Heifer was being slaughtered "in the place" of sinners, to satisfy the penalty or guilt of THEIR sin...would they?  Was not the purpose of the Red Heifer's slaughter a means to bring about the "REMISSION" of sin FROM a sinner (to separate their sin FROM their lives)?  Consider what happens when cancer goes into remission...the cancer is no longer active, it has been effectively SEPARATED from them, and this was the purpose of slaughtering the Red Heifer...to TURN sinners AWAY FROM their sin to where their sin is no longer active.

It's like I wrote in my last post.  The sinner is to IDENTIFY with the slaughtered sacrifice, and then put to death whatever caused them to kill or shed the blood of the offering.  The shedding of the blood IS the killing of the sacrifice, and that shed blood should cause the remission of sin in a sinner's life.  Just as a point of reference, consider how Peter accused those who were directly responsible for shedding innocent blood when he told them that they, with the help of wicked hands, did murder an innocent man, but then let a murderer go free.  Peter did not tell them a substitute died in their place to pay the penalty of their sin, he pointed out to them that they murdered/shed the blood of someone who did not deserve to die...and what was their response...they were CUT TO THE HEART, and ASKED what they must do.

These are the things that the missionaries have totally misunderstood and distorted, and that is a big problem for them, especially WHEN Judaism can faithfully explain and point out to them how the Ashes of the Red Heifer can BOTH defile the clean AND cleanse the defiled.  Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

Jews do not need to be trying to explain away the problems of the Christian documents. The missionaries haven't misrepresented or distorted what the New Testament says. They present what it says. You simply reject what the New Testament says. You don't follow the New Testament; they do. You can't interpret it away.

(08-25-2020, 11:38 AM)ImAHebrew Wrote: Shalom Jason, isn't it all a matter of opinion?  Like the example I gave concerning the counting of the omer, one side has misrepresented or distorted which day the counting starts on, as each side believes their interpretation is 100% correct (but one side is wrong).  The missionaries are 100% in error in how they follow the substitutional view of sacrifice that Judaism endorsed, and they have little to no understanding of what Paul wrote concerning sacrifice.  It all starts with grasping how the Ashes of the Red Heifer can BOTH defile and cleanse.  When that is understood, there will be no doubt concerning how sinners are separated FROM their sin...believing that "god" had to die in their stead, or believing that they murdered a totally innocent righteous man.

(08-25-2020, 11:38 AM)ImAHebrew Wrote: P.S.  What is your response to the missionaries doctrine or teaching about Grace?  How do you undermine that teaching they have developed?  Or do you even go into that kind of depth with them.